I believe "You're bad" constitutes as an insult and as an overall measure of skill. and doesn't completely pertain to the current topic while "Get better" wouldn't but is an extremely flimsy argument when you can say that for every argument. Is that a fallacy? Any debater doods pls halp, Wikipedia 2hard.
Edit - I've been meaning to say that also in Brawl Pika has RCO (I think is what it's called) and doesn't have a way to get to the ground really quickly after QAC'ing. Unless you perfect QA -> Drop through platform cancel thingy -> platform cancel on SV/Lylat. Also Brawl players were too busy complaining about MK.
It's called an Ad-hominem - argument on the person, it's attacking the person instead of the argument.
Ex: "I think anthropogenic global warming is real and a problem! CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas, which is why the planet isn't -4 degrees Celsius, and adding more increases global temperatures, which is linked to more storms and higher sea levels that endanger costal areas!"
"But you're stupid!"
- This does not actually answer any claims made, but attempts to discredit the argument by using the logic chain
A) X is stupid
B) Stupid people tend to be wrong
C) X is wrong about Y [even though Y may be factually correct - if X had said "2+2=4 in base 10", X would be right, even though this logic chain would appear to hold for some generic Y]
Dafug is a strawman then. Wikipedia pls give me the power to search using your wikipedianess. Roy's Blazer killing Jiggz at 0% thouuugh. Best rest punish ever.
Straw-man is stating a weak or parodied version of an argument to debunk it more easily. For instance [this example is kind of sucky]:
My argument: The US military has provided stability by intervening in unstable areas, acting as a policeman of the world.
You: You said the US has made areas stable by killing people and trying to dominate other areas for their oil. That's stupid and we can see all the wars that cuased.
Me: Straw-man - I said the US intervening stabilizes areas - that includes sending diplomats to mediate, offering ground and/or air support to governments under assault from extremists, and attempting to eliminate violent elements in areas that have been shown to pose a direct threat to the US. And 60 years of Japan. Also, last I checked, since the US became the dominant power, there has not been a major war since WWII - as opposed to 2 world wars in a span of 31 years prior to US primacy.
Debater dood hopes it makes sense.
Also RCO lag only occurred from QA2C, not QA1C, if memory serves. Also I think Pikachu had relatively low RCO lag - only like 15 frames if Pikachu didn't fall very far and didn't fastfall.
QAC helps Pikachu's recovery - I know this because I know a player who picked Pikachu only because he's really bad at aiming at these small things called "ledges". That said, I fsmash him out of QA frequently on FD and make reads on other stages (go to platform or no?), so it's not really a problem. The way it buffs recovery is that unlike against Sheik or Falcon, if you hold ledge and jump onstage you aren't guaranteed a punish if they QAC.
Personally, I find this buff to be negligible, and something that helps Pikachu out in a needed way (the lag on QA is stupid in my opinion as well - just because it was a good move in 64 doesn't mean it needs to suck in Melee or PM), so I don't think nerfing QAC would be a wise idea in any sense. Never heard of that Lylat/SV tech you mentioned though.
Player-0 your post is a bit contradictory, lol. Either RCO made the difference or it didnt. In any case, there's no point to using QAC to recover on stage and no one really used it that way in 6 years of Brawl either. If you successfully QA past your opponent and onto the stage, what point is there in QAC afterwards. What advantage does that provide you? If you QA past your opponent 9 out of 10 times youre just going to want to land on the ground and not care about QAC. Anything you could do with QAC would just put you at a disadvantage, the only exception I can think of is if you QAC back at your opponent at the ledge which isnt recovery related.
QAC to recover onstage is really good against an MK who tornados prematurely at the ledge - with good timing you'll take center stage as they suffer tornado endlag and be in neutral without RCO. This timing is not that easy for this though. And you want QAC, not just landing, because even though tornado has at least 29 frames of endlag, that's not all that much really, so getting the QAC can make a reasonably large difference.
But saying that "QAC buffs Pikachu's neutral game and recovery too much, therefore it should leave" is a poor design choice - Pikachu has always been designed to have a strong recovery and reasonably good gimping game - in exchange it doesn't have consistent approaches, only a projectile to aid forcing approaches or slightly aid approaches (that is only really good in Brawl and maybe Smash 4 from what I've seen) and in that statement I include QAC (just nairplane through QAC or shoot a projectile - literally every character in PM can do at least one of those things and QAC approaches lose to BOTH).
I wasn't here for the source argument, so maybe it is more than that, but this argument seems fairly similar to the argument I have read elsewhere that Samus should lose her bomb jump since her recovery is too good - Samus's recovery being good is part of what makes Samus Samus.
